Obama declares support for gay marriage

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Maybe I spend too much time on Reddit but the thing that pisses me off the most about the "but it says so in the bible" crowd is they just pick and choose what they want to follow from the bible while likely having no basis of knowledge of what actually is in the bible. Know any Christians with tattoos? Yep, banned. Slavery, why not? Hittin' yo' wife? Not a problem. Better not masturbate though...

The best, most absolutely delicious part about the whole "it's in the bible" argument is that those same people will will say we need to fight Islam because the Quran is a dangerous, violent religious text. Bitch, have you read the bible?!?![/QUOTE]

christianity has been pretty domesticated, and i don't think the bullying will be tolerated much longer.

the last time the christian right had their winning streak they banned alcohol and the teaching of evolution. i don't think they have a shot at being taken seriously this election or anywhere in the future.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's what kills me about this whole issue, nobody is trying to force a church to perform a marriage. If they don't want to marry two gay people, fine. This isn't a religious issue it's a legal one, can they get legally married. Can they go to a judge and get legally married. But some of our more knuckle dragging citizens can't get that through their fat heads.[/QUOTE]

It's not just that issue though. Even those who understand that still oppose it for other stupid reasons.

Believing it's a sin, and being a type that wants to force their morals on everyone. Thinking it will destroy the "sanctity of marriage", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. And so on.

It just comes down to homophobia and those types always have some BS reason for opposing it even when you shoot down false ones like them thinking their church would be forced to perform gay weddings.
 
But if it isn't a religious issue then there is no need to invoke one's religious principles. There is religious marriage and legal marriage, two completely different things recognized by two completely different bodies. Hell, let them beleive that it isn't marriage unless it's done by the church, who cares as long as the state recognizes it. Legal marriage really only exists for legal reasons, religion has never been taken into account in that regard. It's fine if the church refuses to recognize the marriages, but they should have the legal perks that come with marriage.

It really is about separation of church and state and how some people just can't except that. Of course these are the same people who would have low regard for other (muslim) countries in which the government and religion are intimately intertwined. Somehow a country ruled by the Christian church would be different.
 
[quote name='Clak']But if it isn't a religious issue then there is no need to invoke one's religious principles. There is religious marriage and legal marriage, two completely different things recognized by two completely different bodies. Hell, let them beleive that it isn't marriage unless it's done by the church, who cares as long as the state recognizes it. Legal marriage really only exists for legal reasons, religion has never been taken into account in that regard. It's fine if the church refuses to recognize the marriages, but they should have the legal perks that come with marriage.

It really is about separation of church and state and how some people just can't except that. Of course these are the same people who would have low regard for other (muslim) countries in which the government and religion are intimately intertwined. Somehow a country ruled by the Christian church would be different.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't help that they then claim "persecution" when something runs against their beliefs...especially in this case. Personally, I like how a Fark commenter put it a few months ago: "When an American Christian says they are being persecuted, they don't mean they are being stopped from practicing their religion. They mean they are not being allowed to force everyone else to follow their rules."
 
[quote name='Clak']But if it isn't a religious issue then there is no need to invoke one's religious principles. [/QUOTE]

It is still a religious issue for many, even if they understand the separation of church and state issues, and that their church can't be forced to perform or recognize gay marriages.

They can still be opposed to homosexuality, and not support gay marriages personally, as they think it's a sin due to their religious beliefs. While at the same time not opposing legal marriages for gays due to understanding separation of church and state. Doesn't mean the support it, just that they don't campaign against them.

Not saying that's a common view, but I know some with such views. Mostly well educated, but religiously conservative, folks.

But for some it really isn't religion and it's just homophobia and they hide behind the religious excuse to justify their bigotry, and those are the ones that shouldn't be invoking their religious principles on the issue. These types tend to not be all that devout about their religion and just mention it to justify their hate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HumanSnatcher'] "When an American Christian says they are being persecuted, they don't mean they are being stopped from practicing their religion. They mean they are not being allowed to force everyone else to follow their rules."[/QUOTE]

Very true, and that's my biggest beef with the religious right.

I support everyone's right to have whatever beliefs they want. But I have no patience for people who want to force their beliefs on others.

The US was settled and founded by generations of people who fled religious persecution in Europe. And now we have a large segment of the population who wants to persecute people with different beliefs and force their world view on everyone.

Thankfully, as someone else noted above, the religious right has very little political power these days--at least at the national level. They're thankfully mostly concentrated in shitty, southern fly over states that don't have all that many electoral votes. Thus they don't have that much sway in the presidential elections or in the House.

And national trends are clearly not supportive of the religious right as illustrated by everything from the change in attitudes about sex over the past several generations, to a majority nationwide now supporting gay marriage, to the rapid rise in agnostics/atheists in recent years.

The religious right is a loud bloc, but one with little real power.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's not just that issue though. Even those who understand that still oppose it for other stupid reasons.

Believing it's a sin, and being a type that wants to force their morals on everyone. Thinking it will destroy the "sanctity of marriage", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. And so on.

It just comes down to homophobia and those types always have some BS reason for opposing it even when you shoot down false ones like them thinking their church would be forced to perform gay weddings.[/QUOTE]

That's really the heart of the matter. The vast majority of the people opposing gay marriage are doing so out of homophobia. They cloak themselves in religious reasons to justify their homophobia but really they're just too scared of the backlash they'd receive from outright stating that they hate gays. Essentially, religion provides the safety and security for these people to reinforce their bigotry.

I suppose the hiding behind religion says a lot. On the one hand at least it's becoming less and less socially acceptable to be bigoted toward gays to the point that people need to hide their bigotry; on the other hand its sad that religion seems to be their refuge for hiding bigotry...
 
When its all said and done: When we're talkin what affect it will have on the Presidential campaign. : I think for Obama , he made a safe choice. Romney doesn't believe in gay rights period from his religious background. He's always maintained that status quo of 'non-support'. So Obama can come out (forgive the pun) Because it wont turn Romney towards antithesis. He wont go for the Phelps endorsement.
In fact , If I was in the Romney Compound the charge that'll stick here is "Leading from behind , again". Ya know , Something along the lines of :
"You had Bill Clinton and other surrogates out there doing your dirty work , robo - calls and what not. And when it didnt take and the vote didnt go your way , lo-and-behold now you have an opinion. Try not to hurt yourself"
Weak but sticky(fuck , thats Romneys whole bag: Weak and Sticky)
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']It's odd watching a bunch of people arguing a point from someone else's assumed point of view.[/QUOTE]
Are you that someone else?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']It's odd watching a bunch of people arguing a point from someone else's assumed point of view.[/QUOTE]

What? Are you kidding? That's standard operating procedure around these parts. ;)

[quote name='dmaul1114']It is still a religious issue for many, even if they understand the separation of church and state issues, and that their church can't be forced to perform or recognize gay marriages.[/QUOTE]

While I am in favor of ending the government's gender-based discrimination, I am left wondering how long it would be before someone brought forth a lawsuit against a church for not renting the use of the church's facilities to a couple based on the couple's sexual orientation.

Should same-sex marriage be legalized, I'd say, under current interpretations of the law, this would be illegal. It'd be no different than denying a black couple the use of the facilities based on their race.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']There, fixed it for you. The North Carolina bill bans not just Gay Marriage but Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions. I believe there's something bad in it towards straight people as well.
Bottom line, if you voted for the North Carolina bill with full knowledge of it's implications then you're a bigot in regards to Gay people.
[/QUOTE]

The only reason the bill in NC got on the ballot in the Primary is because of the Democratic Governor. Otherwise it would've been vetoed by her since it was originally going to be put on the ballot for the general, which would've meant a harder time for Obama here come November. Then again, Democratic enthusiasm here isn't too high given the current Governor is cutting and running.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']It's odd watching a bunch of people arguing a point from someone else's assumed point of view.[/QUOTE]

Who is assuming anything? The points of view mentioned in this thread are things that everyone has heard from opponents of gay marriage. The bible says it's a sin, marriage is for procreation, marriage has always been defined as being a man and woman and changing that will ruin the sanctity of marriage, etc. I'm sure that we've heard all of these points of view hundreds of times.

If you have something new to bring to the table, why don't you share it?
 
[quote name='Clak']Whose votes is it going to cost him? It's hard for me to believe that very many people are thinking "Well shit, I was going to vote for him, but he likes teh gays so fuck that..." when you consider all of the other reasons a person like that would have to NOT vote for him already. I don't see this as being the tipping point for those folks.[/QUOTE]

Socially conservative/religious Independents.

I think it's a brave stance, regardless of my personal politics, to say that in an election year. I figured he would've waited til a day after the election, but as others have mentioned, Biden forced his hand. I don't think it comes close to hurting his chances for an ENORMOUS win over Romney, because modern day politics is all about appeasing extremists on both sides.

Also as others have said, I don't see him doing anything to legalize it. It's just words at this point, which makes the decision that much more bizarre. If you're going to go in, go all in. Dipping your toe in the water of the issue may appease or offend some, but if that's his view, work to make it legal. But then again, that assumes that our politicians are people of action, and not people of inaction. That's a big assumption to make.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It is still a religious issue for many, even if they understand the separation of church and state issues, and that their church can't be forced to perform or recognize gay marriages.

They can still be opposed to homosexuality, and not support gay marriages personally, as they think it's a sin due to their religious beliefs. While at the same time not opposing legal marriages for gays due to understanding separation of church and state. Doesn't mean the support it, just that they don't campaign against them.

Not saying that's a common view, but I know some with such views. Mostly well educated, but religiously conservative, folks.

But for some it really isn't religion and it's just homophobia and they hide behind the religious excuse to justify their bigotry, and those are the ones that shouldn't be invoking their religious principles on the issue. These types tend to not be all that devout about their religion and just mention it to justify their hate.[/QUOTE]
But is it really even marriage in the eyes of a religion if the marriage wasn't performed within that religion's tradition? Meaning fi you don't recognize the marriage, are they really even married in your eyes?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Very true, and that's my biggest beef with the religious right.

I support everyone's right to have whatever beliefs they want. But I have no patience for people who want to force their beliefs on others.

The US was settled and founded by generations of people who fled religious persecution in Europe. And now we have a large segment of the population who wants to persecute people with different beliefs and force their world view on everyone.

Thankfully, as someone else noted above, the religious right has very little political power these days--at least at the national level. They're thankfully mostly concentrated in shitty, southern fly over states that don't have all that many electoral votes. Thus they don't have that much sway in the presidential elections or in the House.

And national trends are clearly not supportive of the religious right as illustrated by everything from the change in attitudes about sex over the past several generations, to a majority nationwide now supporting gay marriage, to the rapid rise in agnostics/atheists in recent years.

The religious right is a loud bloc, but one with little real power.[/QUOTE]
That's what i always say, they're people who just don't see which way the wind is blowing in this country. People tend to become more understanding and liberal over time, probably due in part to a more educated populace. there are those who just won't change with the times, but then they get left behind and ignored too. These folks just are determined to not be ignored.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Socially conservative/religious Independents.

[/QUOTE]
Who would have otherwise voted for him? I doubt that.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Should same-sex marriage be legalized, I'd say, under current interpretations of the law, this would be illegal. It'd be no different than denying a black couple the use of the facilities based on their race.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense, I can't go to the Basilica of St. Mary to get married since I'm not a Catholic, or a member of the church. I couldn't go to a Mosque to get married either since they'd try to kill my jewy ass.

Discrimination in and of itself is legal (we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason) but discrimination by law is not.
 
[quote name='nasum']Nonsense, I can't go to the Basilica of St. Mary to get married since I'm not a Catholic, or a member of the church. I couldn't go to a Mosque to get married either since they'd try to kill my jewy ass.

Discrimination in and of itself is legal (we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason) but discrimination by law is not.[/QUOTE]

If you're refusing to allow someone the use of your facilities because they're not a member of the organization, that's an entierly different thing.

Many churches rent out their facilities to the general public for events (like weddings). I know, because I'm not a member of any church and had a chruch wedding. We rented the facilities and the father of a friend of my wife (a pastor at a different church) performed the services.

If a church has such a program in place, I could easily see a lawsuit against them if they refused to rent the facilities based on one of the various anti-discrimination statuses (race, gender, sexual preference, etc.)

I'm not saying this is a reason to oppose same-sex marriage - but I could see such a suit happening. and winning.
 
Mmmm, no, don't think so. It's already been established that churches can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple if they wish. Renting out the property would be much of the same. Now on the other hand, if some dumbass judge tried to refuse them, as happened not long ago with I beleive a bi-racial couple, then that's a different story*.

*edit-Assuming gay marriage is legal in that state.
 
[quote name='Clak']Mmmm, no, don't think so. It's already been established that churches can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple if they wish. Renting out the property would be much of the same. Now on the other hand, if some dumbass judge tried to refuse them, as happened not long ago with I beleive a bi-racial couple, then that's a different story*.

*edit-Assuming gay marriage is legal in that state.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a link to an example of this happening in the US via court decision? A federal decision would be preferred.
 
[quote name='Clak']Mmmm, no, don't think so. It's already been established that churches can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple if they wish. Renting out the property would be much of the same. Now on the other hand, if some dumbass judge tried to refuse them, as happened not long ago with I beleive a bi-racial couple, then that's a different story*.

*edit-Assuming gay marriage is legal in that state.[/QUOTE]

A judge, as a servant of the people, should be required to perform them as any others.

Church leaders, likely, would be able to opt out.

But the renting of the facilities... I, also, would like to see a similar court ruling where a church, who rents their facilities to the general public, won in a case where they chose to discriminate against individuals of a protected class expressly for the stated discriminatory reason.
 
[quote name='nasum'] I couldn't go to a Mosque to get married either since they'd try to kill my jewy ass.[/QUOTE]

Remember how the thread was discussing ignorant vs. intolerant? We have a posterchild.

Not only do Muslims verrrrrrrrrrry seldom get married in a mosque, to my knowledge there are only two widely known mosques which do not allow non-muslims to enter-the mosque in Mecca, and the mosque in Medina, both in Saudi.
 
The whole thing is absurd anyway, why would pro-business republicans be in favour of denying potential revenue to florists, jewelers, reception halls, legal fees, caterers, etc...

You can come up with the biblical nonsense all you want, but then you have to forgo that whole forgiveness thing that is also paramount in the biblical nonsense.

There is simply no reason to be against gay marriage aside from not liking the gays.

berzirk:
c'mon buddy
 
[quote name='nasum']berzirk:
c'mon buddy[/QUOTE]

Meh, my beef was regarding the poor analogy.

My position is still that I commend Obama for saying something he apparently believes, despite the potential political backlash. Contrast that with Romney who will say whatever the crowd in front on him wants to hear on any given day. I still feel like we'll be voting for the least turdy of two turds this year, but as a break from my voting patterns, I'll be voting for the least turdy, and put my vote behind Obama...assuming I get around to re-registering to vote in time.
 
[quote name='nasum']The whole thing is absurd anyway, why would pro-business republicans be in favour of denying potential revenue to florists, jewelers, reception halls, legal fees, caterers, etc...

You can come up with the biblical nonsense all you want, but then you have to forgo that whole forgiveness thing that is also paramount in the biblical nonsense.

There is simply no reason to be against gay marriage aside from not liking the gays.

[/QUOTE]
:) You just highlighted the absurdity with an absurd notion " Hey Republican, I thought we lived in a Banana Republic! The Plutocracy cant thrive without the exploitation of florists and gay caterers"

Going back to what ultimately pisses me off about Obama and this whole enterprise: He was on the news talking about "Sasha and Malia have friends whose parents are same sex couples." And I want to scream at him. :
Hey fuck Face , do Sasha and Malia have friends with straight parents too ? Because guess what ; none of us live in a Legitimate Republic anymore!. We're allowing the majority to vote on the inalienable human rights of a minority , and you need to look to your daughters circle of friends to relate to that? Seriously?
Let me see If I got this straight: They dont allow us to vote on benign inconsequential items but you allow us to cast a ballot that's wholly unconstitutional?? We cant vote on say , The streets and sanitation budget for our own state. No no no, we Need to elect a representative for that measure. Hell, they didn't even let us vote for the bailout. Why doesn't The Legislative body of Congress tackle this item? I guess its kinda hard to vote "no" when you're actually sworn to uphold The Constitution. So lets pawn it off on people that arent.
 
[quote name='nasum']The whole thing is absurd anyway, why would pro-business republicans be in favour of denying potential revenue to florists, jewelers, reception halls, legal fees, caterers, etc...

You can come up with the biblical nonsense all you want, but then you have to forgo that whole forgiveness thing that is also paramount in the biblical nonsense.

There is simply no reason to be against gay marriage aside from not liking the gays.

berzirk:
c'mon buddy[/QUOTE]

Not everything is about a buck to people. Your argument is shallow and whiny.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A judge, as a servant of the people, should be required to perform them as any others.

Church leaders, likely, would be able to opt out.

But the renting of the facilities... I, also, would like to see a similar court ruling where a church, who rents their facilities to the general public, won in a case where they chose to discriminate against individuals of a protected class expressly for the stated discriminatory reason.[/QUOTE]

Scotus just did a unanimous ruling saying religious orgs can fire you for any reason, didn't they? And you have no recourse bc of 1st Amendment?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Do you have a link to an example of this happening in the US via court decision? A federal decision would be preferred.[/QUOTE]
Example of what happening? I listed a few different things there.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']:) You just highlighted the absurdity with an absurd notion " Hey Republican, I thought we lived in a Banana Republic! The Plutocracy cant thrive without the exploitation of florists and gay caterers"

[/QUOTE]Well the U.S. isn't politically unstable, nor do we rely on a few exports to get by, but the Plutocracy is about right. Things keep going the way they are we may shore up the first two bits as well.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']We're allowing the majority to vote on the inalienable human rights of a minority[/QUOTE]

This. So much this.

[quote name='IRHari']Scotus just did a unanimous ruling saying religious orgs can fire you for any reason, didn't they? And you have no recourse bc of 1st Amendment?[/QUOTE]

But then, you have situations like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/nyregion/30ocean.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled that the refusal of the church group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns a square mile of beachfront property in Ocean Grove, near Asbury Park, to rent the spot to the couple violated the public accommodation provisions of the state’s Law Against Discrimination.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not saying that the government should be allowed to discriminate against individuals who wish to enter into a contract based only upon the genders of the individuals - but let's not pretend that this won't end up churches being forced to host same-sex weddings.
 
Imo, if churches are renting their facilities to the general public (not just to members of the church or faith or denomination), they shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone. This doesn't affect their ability to practice their faith. The church leader wouldn't be forced to have anything to do with the ceremony, and the church members wouldn't be forced to attend the ceremony. If the church doesn't like it, they shouldn't rent the facility to the public.
 
Which will result in either:

A) Churches being forced to allow what their religion considers "sin" to be celebrated within the walls of their church

or

B) Churches will stop offering the use of their facilities to the general public, limiting the availability of such facilities - even more so in smaller communities like mine.

Sounds like a win-win to me.
 
Gary Johnson takes it one step further.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-criticizes-obama-for-throwing-gay-marriage-to-the-states

In a statement, Johnson said, “Instead of insisting on equality as a U.S. Constitutional guarantee, the President has thrown this question back to the states. When the smoke clears, Gay Americans will realize the President’s words have gained them nothing today, and that millions of Americans in most states will continue to be denied true marriage equality . I guess the President is still more worried about losing Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia than he is in doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

It's definitely a political move. It may hurt him with some groups he didn't have anyway (essentially agreeing with Clak in this post), but the ploy is designed to take the focus off the economy, where unemployment is only falling because people have dropped out of the workforce. I think this was going to originally happen around September but Biden let the cat out of the bag.

By the way, the whole leave it to the states position is similar to Ron Paul's, and Paul gets called an asshole for his leave it to the states policies. In any case, I think the economy is going to be more important than social issues. And don't worry, Republicans try to take the focus off the shit they pull with social issues too.
 
[quote name='Clak']But is it really even marriage in the eyes of a religion if the marriage wasn't performed within that religion's tradition? Meaning fi you don't recognize the marriage, are they really even married in your eyes?[/QUOTE]

Thats what I was getting at. I know some religious folk who are ok with legal gay marriages as their religion doesnt have to perform or recognize them as valid.

Given that, they don't care that they can legally marry and get the legal benefits that come with it. They can just ignore it more or less.
 
Now see, the idea of a religious community being forced to rent their property out to people who they feel are living an immoral life, that makes me uncomfortable. And I think that's the kind of stuff that makes this an issue that is pretty evenly split down the middle. Can't blame it all on "religious nuts." There are legitimately average individuals who don't like the idea of the government telling a church they have to let gay couples get married on their property.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Now see, the idea of a religious community being forced to rent their property out to people who they feel are living an immoral life, that makes me uncomfortable. And I think that's the kind of stuff that makes this an issue that is pretty evenly split down the middle. Can't blame it all on "religious nuts." There are legitimately average individuals who don't like the idea of the government telling a church they have to let gay couples get married on their property.[/QUOTE]

In such an instance the religious community is creating the problem for itself by holding its property out for rental to the general public.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Gary Johnson takes it one step further.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-criticizes-obama-for-throwing-gay-marriage-to-the-states

It's definitely a political move. It may hurt him with some groups he didn't have anyway (essentially agreeing with Clak in this post), but the ploy is designed to take the focus off the economy, where unemployment is only falling because people have dropped out of the workforce. I think this was going to originally happen around September but Biden let the cat out of the bag.[/QUOTE]

He'll have an easier time in NC because that proposal wasn't on the General Election ballot (It needed Democrat votes to get on the ballot in the first place, and there's no way they'd let it be on the general ballot). But again, we're having a Governor Election here where the Republican Candidate (who lost last time closely) is currently favored by 5 football fields, so that makes things interesting.

Also, my brother's friend who ran the opposition for it in Watauga County (the only rural county to vote NO on it) basically told him that it looks like the majority of Democrats voted for the bill as well (there was a Democratic Primary here as well for the uninformed).

Also the opposition for the Amendment ran a terrible campaign besides him. They should have focused on the wording of the bill, not just a straight up opposition to it, since the amendment read '1 man + 1woman will be the only recognized union in the state.' I'm not saying it would've made a difference, but that's a terrible oversight on their part.

[quote name='Clak']Example of what happening? I listed a few different things there.[/QUOTE]

Sources man, sources. A vague description without a name of case or state means nothing to me.
 
[quote name='Clak']Example of what happening? I listed a few different things there.[/QUOTE]

Sources man, sources. A vague description without a name of case or state means nothing to me.
 
I honestly think that conservatives have some sort of mental defect, I think they should be considered mentally handicapped. Anyone who thinks that legalizing gay marriage = people trying to marry turtles is retarded. That man is Bill O'Reilly.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']He'll have an easier time in NC because that proposal wasn't on the General Election ballot (It needed Democrat votes to get on the ballot in the first place, and there's no way they'd let it be on the general ballot). But again, we're having a Governor Election here where the Republican Candidate (who lost last time closely) is currently favored by 5 football fields, so that makes things interesting.

Also, my brother's friend who ran the opposition for it in Watauga County (the only rural county to vote NO on it) basically told him that it looks like the majority of Democrats voted for the bill as well (there was a Democratic Primary here as well for the uninformed).

Also the opposition for the Amendment ran a terrible campaign besides him. They should have focused on the wording of the bill, not just a straight up opposition to it, since the amendment read '1 man + 1woman will be the only recognized union in the state.' I'm not saying it would've made a difference, but that's a terrible oversight on their part.



Sources man, sources. A vague description without a name of case or state means nothing to me.[/QUOTE]I'm going to ask again and this will be the last time, case study of what? I mentioned a few different things there, what don't you beleive and/or agree with? I can't provide you with any proof if I don't know what the hell you want proof of. If you mean That churches don't have to perform marriages, that's common knowledge.
 
I'm not asking for a case study. I'm asking for a court ruling, preferably federal that states that churches, or places of worship can decline to hold gay marriages there on religious grounds.

Also, insulting people, calling them bigots and retards, makes you look like one yourself. Ever hear the saying 'if you say someone is racist, you're probably racist yourself'? That applies here.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I'm not asking for a case study. I'm asking for a court ruling, preferably federal that states that churches, or places of worship can decline to hold gay marriages there on religious grounds.[/QUOTE]
It's fairly common knowledge that a church can pretty much refuse anyone from using their property. I doubt that any Christian church would allow Satanists to perform a sacrifice, Muslims to pray to Allah, or have bar mitzvahs...you can add perform marriage ceremonies to that too.

Also, insulting people, calling them bigots and retards, makes you look like one yourself. Ever hear the saying 'if you say someone is racist, you're probably racist yourself'? That applies here.
Click to expand...
I gotta pull out the bullshit flag on this one. That argument you're making is an equivalent of "it takes one to know one." The only thing that applies here is you dragging out childish arguments. This is one step below "your intolerance of my intolerance makes YOU the intolerant one."
 
You can disagree with people without throwing generalizing insults. Insulting people will ultimately cost you later in life, not them. That is what I am saying. It shows everyone that he doesn't care what the other side's argument is, nor does he wish to.

I asked him 3 times for a proof of direct source, something he has still failed to provide. I will keep asking until he provides evidence for his claims.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']You can disagree with people without throwing generalizing insults. Insulting people will ultimately cost you later in life, not them. That is what I am saying. It shows everyone that he doesn't care what the other side's argument is, nor does he wish to.[/quote]
That's horseshit, but at least you've moved up the ladder to "intolerant of intolerance." You're literally defending bigots and homophobes here. Being against same-sex marriages pretty much fits the definition of bigotry. I don't even know why that even needs to be said here.

I asked him 3 times for a proof of direct source, something he has still failed to provide. I will keep asking until he provides evidence for his claims.
Click to expand...
Really dude? How about you prove that they can't refuse to marry people to show him how wrong he is then?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']
I asked him 3 times for a proof of direct source, something he has still failed to provide. I will keep asking until he provides evidence for his claims.[/QUOTE]

dohdough is as disingenuous a liberal as they come, but this isn't really speech and debate or a classroom so I really wouldn't expect sources and citations. This is primarily a forum for video games, after all.

I hate asking people for their sources and citations on the Internet because Google is right there to do, at the very least, some basic research on claims that don't seem on the up and up.

As for the specific issue, it's probably an open legal question that has yet to resolved. But considering that churches have historically been exempt from discrimination laws, future rulings will likely be friendly to churches.
 
[quote name='dohdough']It's fairly common knowledge that a church can pretty much refuse anyone from using their property. [/QUOTE]

Except, of course, I've already provided an actual court case that shows this to be incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top